But Leo, if you insist on putting everything in terms of morality,
are you examining the presuppositions of that position? And what are
they? Is Carrol's position _anti_-moral, or rather non-moral?
If "throwing out" morality is to "deny its grounding" then I presume
that to keep morality is to affirm its grounding. Please explain,
What is the "grounding" of morality in general, in your view?
You seem to believe that some morality must be the basis of
desirability, which I presume to mean that you have some moral
standard for desires? I'm curious what those standards are and how
they are themselves justified as moral. I'm sure I had desires
before I had morality programmed into me, so what were those?
non-moral, at least?
These are not just rhetorical questions, I want to know the answers.
Lisa Rogers
>>> <LeoCasey at aol.com> 8/15/95, 08:07am >>>
OK, I give up. If folks want to take some universal anti-morality
position, and keep all the presuppositions of that position
unexamined, then there is nothing to be done.
[snip]To throw out morality altogether, as opposed to critiquing a
particular morality, is to deny the grounding for any such rules.
[snip]And since someone on a Marxism list would seem, by their very
presence here, to believe that some rules for human cultures are more
desirable than other rules, what we are left with is a tacit
morallity which refuses to examine itself.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
------------------